Must see movie: "Red Dawn" - Not kidding - even freepers will "get it"

The 1984 movie Red Dawn was a shameless piece of right wing propaganda. It was produced at the height of the Reagan era, and was filled with images of American Patriotism and martyrdom.

Plot premise: A group of teens escape their small town after it is attacked by the Russians and several other countries who have formed international alliances. Now they fight a seemingly insurmountable battle by themselves to re-take the country that is theirs. They resist the Russians and mount an insurrection that really gives the Russians a headache.

I suggested watching it to someone who is fairly right wing and was going on and on about how awful those Iraqis were and could not possibly understand why they kept blowing things up. They were defending FOX news' use of the word 'terrorists' for insurrectionists. (That's one of FOX's propaganda moves that is most irritating to me. Even MSM outlets like CNN and MSNBC distinguish between insurrectionists and terrorists.)

It only took about 15 minutes of "Red Dawn" - which had been one of their favorite films in the past - for them to "get it". I mean they REALLY got it. ("Oh my god, WE are in THEIR country, no wonder they are pissed".) That was NOT obvious to this person before, but watching Red Dawn made it painfully obvious.

Now in researching for this post, I came across the following comment at imdb.com This person has done the analysis brilliantly, for anyone who is unwilling to put themselves through viewing this film:

As much as I appreciate the message of undying faith in one's country that this film tries to send to it's audience, current events certainly cast an ironic shadow on the attitudes promoted by this film.

Allow me, if you will, to explain: America has been invaded by an international coalition, consisting of (by my count) the armed forces of at least 4 sovereign nations from around the world. While initially successful in securing a large portion of the country, a small, but stubborn insurgency has succeeded in disrupting the occupying forces to the extent of diverting large numbers of troops to dispatch the guerrilla threat. Eventually ending in the martyrdom of a large portion of the cell's members.

Now, why on earth would these supposed "Patriots" resort to violence to resist the invader, despite the fact that, at least in their immediate area, the war is over? Should they not be placated by Soviet attempts to establish a provisional government? Why would they attack the "Soviet-American Friendship" building, costing the lives of untold numbers of relatively innocent members of the Soviet government? Do they not recognize that their former leaders had to be forcibly removed by an international "Coalition of the Willing" in order to remove the threat of America's reckless wielding "Weapons of Mass Destruction?" Would they not be happier working for a Soviet company charged with extracting America's resources for foreign consumption? Why do they not recognize these facts? Because no one, ANYWHERE should be happy about a foreign army marching on their soil. Because, when all else fails, the people have a responsibility to defend their homes. Because collaboration with the enemy should never be tolerated. Because it is human nature.

Now if we can all keep this in mind as we consider the events of our own time, perhaps we can spill a few less drops of blood in the name of freedom.

I loved that movie. It was so bad. Maybe it was just such an original fantasy and the fact it was placed in Colorado. What was that famous line? "Well there are only half a billion Chinese now."

The line actually referred to, and I remember it to this day, half a billion "screamin' Chinamen."

Good times.

Jed Eckert: Well, who *is* on our side?
Col. Andy Tanner: Six hundred million screamin' Chinamen.
Darryl Bates: Well, last I heard, there were a billion screamin' Chinamen.
Col. Andy Tanner: There were.


Jed Eckert: How did you get shot down, Colonel?
Col. Andy Tanner: It was five to one. I got four.

The Colonel: All that hate's gonna burn you up, kid.
Robert: It keeps me warm.

The Colonel: You think you're tough? You eat beans every day? There's a handful of scarecrows left in Denver give anything for a mouthful of what you got.


Jed Eckert: Do you want blindfolds?
Stepan Gorsky: This violates the Geneva convention!
Jed Eckert: I never heard of it!
Stepan Gorsky: Dogface! I show you how Soviet dies.
Robert: I have seen it before, pal.

A great movie for perspective for the Right to get it. They want to believe that we're being invaded, if not by terrorists, then by liberals, even though they dominate the governemnt they won under misleading fear mongering and voter fraud, they own the media, and even though we've invaded most countries on earth in 200 short years and the only war on our soil was our own Civil War.

distributed to make us fear them so we'd support massive defense bills. If we'd spent that money on energy technology which raygun cut in 1985-86, we wouldn't resemble the USSR today in our quest to steal Iraq's oil.

Sounds about right to me.

This movie is so effective because it is so loved among right-wingers. They identify deeply with the themes of the film and it cuts to the core of what they consider 'patriotic'.

But the message is so blatant, so overt, that even the most self-deluded freeper cannot help but see the analogy with the situation in Iraq, and is forced to confront the hypocrisy of maintaining that 'we brought them freedom, they should welcome us'.

They are forced to see the actions of the insurgents through their own patriotic eyes. If you think about Iraq in terms of the ordinary Iraqi people, who had no relation to Saddam's government, but have been bombed and shot at by foreign soldiers...it's just very easy to understand why they want us out, and it's obvious why they are doing what they are doing. Freepers (and armed DUers too) would do EXACTLY the same thing in similar circumstances.

goes a long way. Avenge Me!

I remember the girls, Patrick S., and Charlie Sheen (?)

Wolverine's fathers in Red Dawn. He also did "Paris, Texas" and "Repo Man" the same year. Wow. All 3 have held up pretty well.

I recommend it to my friends looking for something "a little different" to watch...

Any movie with Harry Dean Stanton or the late great JT Walsh is probably worth watchin. Hard to argue with that.

me about JT Walsh.

Jennifer (Dirty Dancing) Grey and Lea (Back to the Future) Thompson.

Harry Dean Stanton (the boys' father, in an Abu-Ghraib-like facility) had his best turn in the classic cult flick Repo Man.

Yes, I do realize that it is tragic and pathetic that I know that factoid.

The Pick Up Artist.

"Pretty in Pink". He played Ringwald's Dad in "Pretty in Pink"

Dennis Hopper played her dad in The Pick-Up Artist. D'oh!

Along with Sean Penn and Elvis Costello. They were all in a support group with Charlie Sheens character (Charlie).

Dialogue:

Charlie's brother walks in on the group.
Looks toward Sean Penn - "Isn't That?"

Charlie - "Yes it is"

Looks toward Elvis Costello - "Isn't That?"

Charlie - "Yes it is"

Looks toward Harry Dean Stanton - " Andd Isn't That?"

Charlie - "He used to be"

Because we LIVE here!!!!!!

Best $9.99 I ever spent on a DVD.

At least all these years I had remebered it was the cubans
that had invaded and taken over America in "red dawn"

Some of us have discussed this before. Maybe we should harass the movies channels about showing Red Dawn more. Just tell them you like Patrick Swayze. Maybe more of the Freeps would "get it" about being an occupying force with a patriotic insurgency.

The original invasion force, the one that dropped onto the school's football field and blew away the history teacher, was probably a Soviet Spetsnaz unit--they didn't drop BMD tracked infantry fighting vehicles, like an airborne division would, and they only dropped a few troops.

The head guy in the operation was a Cuban colonel. And the F-15 pilot claims the Nicaraguan army was in on it too.

Agree with what you said, but thinking that was either Russian Airborne or maybe was Spetsnaz too in tracking them down in the snow.

There was KGB Spetsnaz and GRU Spetsnaz.

KGB Spetsnaz was more like the FBI's Special Response Teams--police commandos.

GRU Spetsnaz was a whole 'nother animal. We had a section who studied Spetsnaz units, and they always said "never compare the GRU Spetsnaz with American special forces; the Spetsnaz do a lot more." Exactly what they did "more" I don't know--they never said--but these guys were apparently a combination of Rambo and James Bond.

I also noticed a shitload of air defense assets in the movie.

We were supposed to feel some of his pangs of conscience, perhaps because he's more "American" than the godless Russian Commies.

n/t

He hated the Soviet "occupiers." That was actually a pretty nuanced character.

I've watched that movie way way too many times. Here is the battle plan behind it.

In the Prelude, the Soviet wheat harvest fails.
Poland has general strikes that are crushed.
The Greens take over West Germany and order American missles out.
Nicaragua falls and triggers a Communist revolution in Mexico.

For some reason, this convinces the Soviets to invade the US. The Cubans and Nicaraguans jump the border in Texas, while the Soviets come across the Bearing Strait into Alaska and move through Canada. There are tactical nuke strikes on some cities, but somehow this does not lead to general nuclear war. The Soviets and Cubans link up in the midwest and are immediately stopped cold by the US, I think around the rockies. Then it becomes World War I trench warfare. The Wolverines are caught in occupied territory. And then Powers Booth joins them. Awesome.

They won't get it.

And they lack the empathy gene that could give them insight into the perspective of the Iraqi resistance.

They are always the aggrieved party, and they are always on the side of the angels.

...it is a readily-available tool to use.

are agents of Eeeevul

but I loved that movie when I was a kid.

"All that hate's gonna burn you up, kid."

"Keeps me warm."

drove my dad crazy .. LOL

and my friends and I used to fantasize about similar scenarios. We were such suckers :sheepish grin:

and I was old enough to know it was propaganda. But I cried my eyes out the first time I saw it.

which is where the movie is really set.

Was never clear to me.

Funny, I never saw it as a propaganda piece. Silly me, I saw it as anti-war. If you don't want the two biggest bullies on the block to blow up the world for no particular reason, better figure out how to make peace.

Hell, even if someone tried to invade and remove President Fucknut, I'd take to the streets simply because I resented foreign occupation.

Not but what there are a lot of ntiwits out there (a majority, matter of fact, as established last November). And hey, whatever works, works. But mein gott some people really are dumb as a box of doorknobs aren't they.

...Used to be a big right-wing slogan.

Hehe

Some of the pieces of shit in the wh are familiar with that line.

Many on the gun boards love this movie and they should STFU when they question why the Iraqis are resisting colonization.

Here is an interesting bit of trivia regarding "Red Dawn":

It was the very first movie to be rated PG-13.

The MPRB said the violence in the film demonstrated the need for a rating between PG and R. :^/

...was demonstrated by "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" (nightmare-giving bug scenes) and "Gremlins" (extreme puppet violence).

But being in the prime category at the time, the biggest effect I noticed was the decline in gratuitous nudity just to score an "R"

"Red Dawn" predates both of those movies.

Indy and Gremlins came out and caused the stir to create the ratings. The Flamingo Kid was the first film to be rated PG-13 by the ratings board, but Red Dawn was the first in theaters.

I checked it out via IMDB, but I also remember going to see it and remember the novelty of seeing the PG-13 rating sign. I had been waiting for Red Dawn to come out and was hopped up on goofballs.

I saw it in the Galleria in Dallas. The movie theater down in the bowels past the ice rink. I wonder if that's still there.

..."Temple of Doom" was released May 23, Gremlins on June 8.

It may have been in the works earlier, but Temple of Doom at least promted the MPAA to go ahead with it.

When PG-13 came out. I remember because my brother started crying because he thought that meant he wouldn't be allowed to see it anymore.

than we thought.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Taking actions like blowing up American soldiers eating at their mess hall is certainly terrorism and not a legitimate form of resistance.

When you are fighting against overwhelming force, you do what needs to be done. If the roles were reversed and we were the insurgents fighting the Iraqi coalition you'd be chucking mortars into their mess tents.

Secondly even when insurgents attack U.S. troops in legitimate battle I have little problem with our troops shooting them first.

If someone attacks they get attacked. That's war.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

(in the U.S.A. sense of "we") think it's quaint? Not using for Gitmo detainees since we decided they aren't really POWs? That sarcasm aside, it's a war, their country is invaded, their friends and relatives are getting killed, their cultural institutions looted and destroyed, do you think they care about rules of engagement? What would you do in their place? You gonna take that rusty AK47 and go shoot at an M1A1 in the street, or figure out how to make some IEDs and ambush a convoy?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I figure within a year or two of the upcoming election.

Sistani is biding his time, waiting for the expected electoral win. With their newly minted legitimacy, they will consolidate power, while we continue to suppress the Sunni revolt.

Once the Sunni's are somewhat subdued, they will ask us to leave. That is when it gets really ugly.

Overall, I have been impressed with the way Sistani has maneuvered so far. Too bad our own Great Leader is not as gifted.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

would lead someone to think that blowing up a bunch of occupation troops in their homeland would be an act of terrorism. But then again, I think the word "terrorism" is almost meaningless anyway at this point. Seems like the French Resistance in WW2 was pretty ruthless in killing German soldiers any way possible, and I seem to recall them blowing up a mess hall or two along the way. When you don't have Predators, AC-130 Spectres, Apache gunships and all that stuff, you have to use your imagination... Not very sporting, but it's hard to imagine us crying foul at this point. We were sure in a hurry to invade. WMD, Shock, awe, flowers. Remember? I am sorry for the grunts over there, but no sympathy for the administration who got us into this mess. I can't imagine what it's like to live in Iraq, but I know if it were my country, I'd want to kill as many invader/occupiers/collaborators as possible, and short of that, deny them the prize (oil).

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Convention say you can't blow up a mess hall? If a bunch of Iraqi troops were eating dinner or sleeping somewhere, and we call in a laser guided bomb on their heads, what's the difference? Not sure that rules of engagement are really part of the Geneva convention anyway. Thought that had more to do with treatment of prisoners, wounded enemies, civilians, etc. Not that we haven't chosen to ignore it when it suits our purposes.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

kind of like the way "speed limits" are explained in Driver's Ed and the way they work in real life. What would you do if you found yourself in a real life Red Dawn situation? Would you fight back, or not? If not, what if your family was killed? If you chose to fight back, would you go find a uniform and study up on rules of engagement, or would you use guerilla tactics and improvise whatever you could?

Since they are breaking the rules, what would you do to resolve the situation. More troops? Reprisals? What would you think the response to your actions would be? Meanwhile, how many new "insurgents" are we creating with smart bomb accidents (was it 5 or 14 killed?) and our other activities? It's interesting to me that we keep having just one more group of dead-enders/Baath party loyalists/Secret Republican Guards/insurgents before we "win".

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

> Every time insurgents attack our troops it increases the likelihood we won't leave.

Perhaps. Assuming our economy can stand it. And our army. Ask someone that's in about "stop loss." I have some cousins that won't be re-upping, if they live. What's the Euro up to? How much oil is being produced in Iraq? I personally think all wars are economic in nature, but I may be slightly too cynical. I do believe that we care less about Iraq in general than a military presence in the Middle East in particular (14 permanent bases).

> I wouldn't fear U.S. soldiers enough to shoot at them

OK, what if Sweden overthrew our government to bring us the glory of Socialist Utopianism? What if they were randomly killing people, blowing shit up, and sending all the corn in Iowa back to Sweden? What would you do then? What if they shot your children at a checkpoint by mistake?

(If not Sweden, pick a country that would work for you. China? Russia? Canada? I have no ax to grind with Sweden, just picking a country at random before I get bored with this silliness).

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

in light of the fact that the war was started by a suprise attack by the United States ordered before a formal declaration of war. Some Iraqi soldiers were probably eating somewhere.

The President was very insistant that he would anounce the time of choosing and then chose to try a suprise surgical to take out Saddam.

So either Bush is also a terrorist as many claim or alls fair in love and war. Take your pick. Either way, to quote the movie, Glory, "ain't noboby is clean".

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

was that terrorism or war?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

German soldiers?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Do you know that for a fact?
and

What difference does it make if they strapped bombs on themselves or just planted the bomb and ran or just threw the grenade?

Killing is killing.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Go back and read it, focus on the question and then answer it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Shifts the focus and misses the issues. :shrug:

it:

Did the Polish people have the right to bomb mess halls containing German soldiers?

Let's expound upon that question. If a Jew held in the German Death Camps could have armed himself and strapped a bomb to his chest and walk into a German mess camp or barracks, would that have been an act or terrorism? Would the Jew have that right?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Did the Polish people have the right to bomb mess halls containing German soldiers?

I am not asking you to make comparisons, I AM ASKING FOR ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS. How dense are you. These are legitimate questions, so answer them if you can, answer them honestly. Once you have answered, then we can see if they compare with anything currently occurring in our world today. Answer them if you dare.

If a Jew held in the German Death Camps could have armed himself and strapped a bomb to his chest and walk into a German mess camp or barracks, would that have been an act or terrorism? Would the Jew have that right?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:shrug:

Every kid knows he attacked the Hessians across the Delaware in a sneak attack during Christmas celebrations.

he probably would have been shot as a terrorist rebel traitor to the empire. It's all relative. From my perspective, he's a hero and a patriot. From a British perspective of the time, he's an evil terrorist.

Do you think we were morally justified in invading Iraq?

The plot is very similar.

They try mass reprisals, then bring in the special forces to hunt down the insurgents.

Even after all the rebels are caught or killed, the insurgency succeeds.

The weirdest thing was they catch the rebel leader in a hole, a lot like Saddam's "spider hole."

I used to love to hate that film. When I first saw it on HBO, in the mid-80s, I just thought it was laughable.

Years later, I'd have these discussions with co-workers and learn, to my shock and horror, that they took the damn thing seriously.

Anyway, I love the idea of using this beloved Freeper flick as something to hammer them with. Wolverines!

It didn't last long and it sure pissed them off, but it was fun!

That is a great analogy but I just tried to use it and one of the nuts I was talking to said that the difference was that Saddam was killing his own people and the U.S. wasn't in RD. I didn't know what to do then.

Ask them if they'd fight if liberators privatized and sold off their country before they could choose their own government.

Greg Palast got Grover Norquist on video saying that's exactly what they planned to do, and that property rights were more important than Iraqis choosing their own government.

I will try that. I'm not that smart and may need some help with this. Thanks guys.

Now he is saying that in RD the Wolverines only attacked those in uniform not civilians, so the analogy is also wrong. I suck at debate. I just get frustrated that people can't see when they are wrong.

It just keeps getting worse. I am getting my butt handed to me.

Now he has thrown out this gem.

"the insurgents are killing exponentially more Iraqis than they are Americans."

Does anyone have any numbers to help me with this?

we went there to stop an Iraqi(Saddam) killing Iraqis, but Iraqis are still killing each other today in large numbers - while we are present.
Guess that means we failed....

Does he think that's a good way to spend American dollars; and soldier's lives? Over a billion a week.

The Opportunity Costs of the Iraq War
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=171440

Today In Iraq
http://dailywarnews.blogspot.com/

Iraq Coalition Casualties
http://icasualties.org/oif/

Iraq Body Count
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/

* Iraqis only kill Americans that enter their own country - while citizens of our "allies" travel around the globe looking to hunt & kill Americans.

"The suicide bomber who killed 22 people when he blew himself up in a U.S. mess hall in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul was a Saudi medical student..."
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/terrorism/s_289499.html

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial_s&hl=en&q=saudi+suicide+mess+hall&btnG=Google+Search

Saddam was a cruel dictator that killed and maimed and tortured and threatened his citizens. But then again, isn't that we are doing to the Iraqi people. How are we different?

My friends and I used to sit in the cafeteria discussing where we would hide, where we would get guns, where we would get food, and who would be the leaders. Of course, I think only one of us had even been hunting to that point, but who cares. What could possibly be more fun than shooting down helicopters and building Molotov cocktails with girls who looked like Lea Thompson? You tell me! Nothing could be more fun.

That's the truth. :)